Re: non-debian kernels -- bizzar?
On Jul 28, Alex Yukhimets wrote
> > Does anyone else think it should be possible to remove the current
> > running kernel, if you answer "yes" to an explicit question that
> > informs you about the possible dangers? Or, do I simply have to
> > reboot into kernel 2.0.29 (also still on my HD), then remove
> > the debian kernel package-2.0.30, and reboot into my own 2.0.30
> > again? Really, I don't see why I should have to go through all
> > this trouble, or what benefit there is in making users go through
> > all this. (Yes, I know I can also change the "exit 1" to an "exit 0"
> > in the prerm, but the example above is just to show how easy it is
> > go get around the test without really knowing what you do).
> >
>
> I agree. The only thing is that prerm should give a prominent warning
> that user has to make sure there is a replacement kernel before
> next reboot.
>
I don't agree: the newbie often don't read the warnings very carefully, and
even the normal users can mistake. A package must not put the system in a
unusable state if dpkg is invoked without the --force option. I think that
if a user want manage own kernels without kernel-package, he can modify the
prerm script. Another solution is create a kernel virtual package, and set
it as required. Every kernel-image-xxx would provide this package. Then you
can remove the kernel-image packages with the option --force, and a
newbie would be pretected against mistakes.
> Alex Y.
>
>
> >
> > Yes, I know I can also build my own kernel with the debian-kernel
> > package, but why do I have to?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: